This is going to be a shorter post than some of the others, because a lot of the errors in this episode are things we’ve already addressed in other posts, namely the fact check of Is Being Fat Bad For You? But there are some additional issues with this episode that make it worth reviewing.
Hobbs' statement about eugenics seems to be the ur example of what's wrong with his way of thinking/arguing. He wants to make to discredit BMI, so he argues that it's racist by (correctly) pointing out that body fat has different health impacts for different groups, but he has to stop himself short of actually making that argument, not because it isn't correct, but because he doesn't like the implications that there are meaningfully genetic differences (on average) between human populatios. Of course, he also overlooks the fact that you can't argue that body fat has different health implications for different groups without acknowledging that body fat has health implications, which he insists on denying.
For everything, he starts with his conclusions and then looks for evidence thst can be massaged to reach that conclusion, rather than letting the evidence take him where it leads (and then calls you racist if you reach a different conclusion).
Yes! You hit the nail on the head. Michael is a pro at mental gymnastics. And he brings people along for the ride pretty effectively, which is why he's so dangerous. You have to stop and really think about what he's saying to realize it's all bull shit.
The big problem with the BMI is that it's a very easy to administer screening tool. The big advantage of the BMI is that it's a very easy to administer screening tool. In either case, it is just supposed to be a screening tool to help inform clinical judgement.
Btw thanks for that link to the podcast with dr nadolsky. I had been wanting a Dr Mike and Doc Who Lift collaboration and didn’t realize that RP was literally that.
I recently started listening to Dr. Nadolsky and his brother Dr Nadolsky on their full podcast to get a sense of the expert medical opinion on the intersection of obesity, glp1s and lifting/exercise. Their most recent podcast was half coverage of the Cagrisema announcement, half ragging on a popular YouTube chiropractor/Naturopath who promotes microdosing these drugs.
Both are board certified physicians in obesity medicine. I'm not expert enough to evaluate the details of what they say, but I can see that at least one of the brother is a co-author on a paper with Dr Ania Jastreboff.
Hah! That's embarrassing. Thank you for pointing that out. I decided to link to them in the text instead of putting them in bullet points and I forgot to remove that sentence. Yikes. I'll edit that!
Even Dr. Kevin Hall uses BMI. Most papers on obesity start with a selection or sort…and they typically use BMI as the screening tool.
I’m fascinated (bemused) by discussions around the BMI …because it is just a mathematical index of mass distribution per height.
“How much human can (should) you stack vertically” - yes, a bodybuilder or athlete is “over human’d “ for their height, just as an amputee is “under human’d “.
Yes, the average American with a BMI >30 is over human’d …and it’s most likely fat.
Yes, some catwalk models with a BMI <18 are under human’d …and people should be concerned.
Hobbs' statement about eugenics seems to be the ur example of what's wrong with his way of thinking/arguing. He wants to make to discredit BMI, so he argues that it's racist by (correctly) pointing out that body fat has different health impacts for different groups, but he has to stop himself short of actually making that argument, not because it isn't correct, but because he doesn't like the implications that there are meaningfully genetic differences (on average) between human populatios. Of course, he also overlooks the fact that you can't argue that body fat has different health implications for different groups without acknowledging that body fat has health implications, which he insists on denying.
For everything, he starts with his conclusions and then looks for evidence thst can be massaged to reach that conclusion, rather than letting the evidence take him where it leads (and then calls you racist if you reach a different conclusion).
Yes! You hit the nail on the head. Michael is a pro at mental gymnastics. And he brings people along for the ride pretty effectively, which is why he's so dangerous. You have to stop and really think about what he's saying to realize it's all bull shit.
The big problem with the BMI is that it's a very easy to administer screening tool. The big advantage of the BMI is that it's a very easy to administer screening tool. In either case, it is just supposed to be a screening tool to help inform clinical judgement.
Yes! The main advantage of it is part of why it gets misused so often. Well said.
Btw thanks for that link to the podcast with dr nadolsky. I had been wanting a Dr Mike and Doc Who Lift collaboration and didn’t realize that RP was literally that.
Oh awesome! This was actually the first exposure I had to Dr. Nadolsky and I was impressed!
I recently started listening to Dr. Nadolsky and his brother Dr Nadolsky on their full podcast to get a sense of the expert medical opinion on the intersection of obesity, glp1s and lifting/exercise. Their most recent podcast was half coverage of the Cagrisema announcement, half ragging on a popular YouTube chiropractor/Naturopath who promotes microdosing these drugs.
I'll check that out! Did it leave you thinking they are a reliable source for this type of information?
Both are board certified physicians in obesity medicine. I'm not expert enough to evaluate the details of what they say, but I can see that at least one of the brother is a co-author on a paper with Dr Ania Jastreboff.
Thank you, very informative! Only note is that it looks like some references are missing at the end of the second-to-last paragraph.
Hah! That's embarrassing. Thank you for pointing that out. I decided to link to them in the text instead of putting them in bullet points and I forgot to remove that sentence. Yikes. I'll edit that!
Even Dr. Kevin Hall uses BMI. Most papers on obesity start with a selection or sort…and they typically use BMI as the screening tool.
I’m fascinated (bemused) by discussions around the BMI …because it is just a mathematical index of mass distribution per height.
“How much human can (should) you stack vertically” - yes, a bodybuilder or athlete is “over human’d “ for their height, just as an amputee is “under human’d “.
Yes, the average American with a BMI >30 is over human’d …and it’s most likely fat.
Yes, some catwalk models with a BMI <18 are under human’d …and people should be concerned.
Yep. BMI itself is not the issue. The issue is how it is being used! Any tool/technology can be implemented in inappropriate ways.